Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

I think so. But if you throw in the idea of accountability, I don’t see that animals are accountable in any way. Just humans.

Regards,
MG

Who/what are humans accountable to? I’m looking for the most base and fundamental level, not a middle man.

That’s going to vary from person to person. At least as far as their own ideas/perception goes. But that’s not to say that we might all be accountable to our creator. That’s some thing that becomes a matter of faith in the eyes of the beholder.

Not matter who or what a person is accountable to, even if it’s their dog, choosing altruistic behavior rather than purposefully wanting to do harm or develop narcissistic behaviors is an act of free will.

In my book, anyway.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't have unresolved issues or bad blood with my brother. All I'll say here is that he has acknowledged issues with his communication style, substance, and methods. Though he's not LDS, his politics and view of the world are similar to those you've presented here.

What are my politics?

What is my view of the world?

Regards,
MG

I can only go by what you've expressed here. How could this be about anything else?

How are my politics and my worldview similar to your brother’s?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

But without pain how would we know if something was wrong or if we were in danger?

A Tesla knows when it's in danger of being hit and reacts more effectively than most drivers, all without feeling anything. If a Tesla already has a stellar avoidance system, why innovate by adding (epiphenomenal) pain circuitry? If you presuppose a "we", then you're nearly arguing for pain based on the assumption of free will. Yes, if "we" are agents with "will", then what better way to get our attention such that "we" "do" something, than "pain"? If we're just observers with the useless epiphenomenal experience of willing things, what benefit is adding useless epiphenomenal pain?

we know there is physical evidence for the existence of pain. We can't prove the existence of free will other than by expressing observation and perception.

Really good point. c-fibers fire, and the result is pain. But, You kind of hit on the problem ^^^. A classic Dennett quote, "In order for states of pain to be important there must be a suffering subject for which they have meaning!"

https://philosophy-science-humanities-c ... ncept=Pain

from the same source:

"Do we experience the stimuli that prevent us from taking a twisted posture during sleep as pain?"

The c-fibres firing don't always result in pain.

I'll throw this out there: one way the modern enlightened secularist can have free will is to invoke the mystery of quantum mechanics to allow for indeterminism. I can cite two sources that give this otherwise pseudoscience idea credibility. Roger Penrose (and Stephen Hawking also) believes it, Penrose has an actual theory about it, and he doesn't suck at science. He does suck at philosophy though. Fortunately, John Searle, who probably sucks at science, has as much credibility as a philosopher as anyone, and he also believes it. It's not a route that interests me for several reasons.

One reason is that randomness in my opinion doesn't fix the problem. Adding randomness to a Tesla avoidance system doesn't put the Tesla in control of its destiny. In fact, as Hume points out, much of what goes for a persons character and choosing makes a great deal of sense in the context of determinism. There is a regularity to me that makes me me and not somebody else. Free-will is a slippery idea.

[IWMP]

I think I can agree with that. Instinctive behaviours feel out of our control. The question I guess I was touching on is, are animals (not humans ) purely instinctive or do they have an element of choice too?

I think so. But if you throw in the idea of accountability, I don’t see that animals are accountable in any way. Just humans.

Regards,
MG

This is a good example of highlighting the difference between choice and accountability. Because I believe animals at times show they have choice. Have you seen those dogs that can communicate with those buttons? However, we don't give them accountability because we don't believe them to be judged in an afterlife and we assume they can't be responsible for their actions because they are how we raise them so we are responsible for their actions. Also we think they don't have choice because we can see their instinctive responses so they can't be accountable. So would a being who created us be aware of what our instinctive responses are more than we are?

We don't attach accountability to babies and toddlers either because I think there is a sense that they don't have choice, they live instinctively. And I do think this makes sense but we aren't able to know if toddlers have a sense of choice because we can't communicate with them in a way that we could see that. They kind of do what we make allow them to do in a way. I mean little toddlers that are basically still babies.

[IWMP]

But without pain how would we know if something was wrong or if we were in danger?

A Tesla knows when it's in danger of being hit and reacts more effectively than most drivers, all without feeling anything. If a Tesla already has a stellar avoidance system, why innovate by adding (epiphenomenal) pain circuitry? If you presuppose a "we", then you're nearly arguing for pain based on the assumption of free will. Yes, if "we" are agents with "will", then what better way to get our attention such that "we" "do" something, than "pain"? If we're just observers with the useless epiphenomenal experience of willing things, what benefit is adding useless epiphenomenal pain?

we know there is physical evidence for the existence of pain. We can't prove the existence of free will other than by expressing observation and perception.

Really good point. c-fibers fire, and the result is pain. But, You kind of hit on the problem ^^^. A classic Dennett quote, "In order for states of pain to be important there must be a suffering subject for which they have meaning!"

https://philosophy-science-humanities-c ... ncept=Pain

from the same source:

"Do we experience the stimuli that prevent us from taking a twisted posture during sleep as pain?"

The c-fibres firing don't always result in pain.

I'll throw this out there: one way the modern enlightened secularist can have free will is to invoke the mystery of quantum mechanics to allow for indeterminism. I can cite two sources that give this otherwise pseudoscience idea credibility. Roger Penrose (and Stephen Hawking also) believes it, Penrose has an actual theory about it, and he doesn't suck at science. He does suck at philosophy though. Fortunately, John Searle, who probably sucks at science, has as much credibility as a philosopher as anyone, and he also believes it. It's not a route that interests me for several reasons.

One reason is that randomness in my opinion doesn't fix the problem. Adding randomness to a Tesla avoidance system doesn't put the Tesla in control of its destiny. In fact, as Hume points out, much of what goes for a persons character and choosing makes a great deal of sense in the context of determinism. There is a regularity to me that makes me me and not somebody else. Free-will is a slippery idea.

I want to reply to more of this, but I need to get kids sorted for school just I'll just reply to one part...

We don't have an avoidance system like the Tesla has. We have much more things that we need to avoid than just moving objects. We have none physical threats too. We also have a very weak sense of what is around us in comparison to the cameras that look at cars and objects in a car. The car knows the rules. It's simple. See or sense an object. It is there. If we don't avoid it we will hit it. Simple. We don't have that. We can see an object but unless we interact with it we won't know if it poses a threat or not. I have poor sense of objects. Can't remember the word. I walk into door frames and door handles all the time and I do this think where I almost exaggerate moving out of people's way because I feel like I'll bump into them if I don't go a bit further. So, my vehical sensors are crappier than average.

This was not the point I was planning to make. So real quick...

Pain... As a person with connective tissue issues. I can say that I have slept with my body in positions I shouldn't have and woke up stuck and in a lot of pain. My body can do that when I'm awake. And it does feel it as pain. Especially when I manually have to put affected limbs back to where they should be because they've seized in a position they shouldn't be in. The reason we don't sleep in positions we shouldn't be in is because our bodies generally don't go into positions they shouldn't be in. I can say that we might move our heads if we as smothering ourselves in our sleep and we might not feel that as pain. But we are feeling the increase in carbon dioxide and that makes us move before we have a chance to feel the pain. If I hold my breath under water, I feel pain. My chest starts to burn.

I can imagine and visualise an idea that pain is subjective to the person and it doesn't actually exist. But I don't believe it. I have full body sensitisation issues so I do feel pain that can be said to not be real because there is no real source of the pain. But the source is the heightened brain behaviour.

It gets a bit tricky when we try to break everything down. I've not had a pain free day in decades so it is a touchy subject for me because I feel pain and it affects my life. Will be trying CBT soon to see if I can trick my mind to reduce the pain lol.

Edit : CBT = congnitive behavioural therapy... Not drugs lol

[Morley]

What are my politics?

What is my view of the world?

Regards,
MG

I can only go by what you've expressed here. How could this be about anything else?

How are my politics and my worldview similar to your brother’s?

One example: Ninety-five percent of what you posted in the 'Secular Folks Should Worry' thread could have easily been said by him.



Another: He would have agreed with your posting and defense of this:

Please let it rest. You're weaponizing my statement about why I have sympathy for your behavior here.

[huckelberry]

How are my politics and my worldview similar to your brother’s?

One example: Ninety-five percent of what you posted in the 'Secular Folks Should Worry' thread could have easily been said by him.



Another: He would have agreed with your posting and defense of this:

Please let it rest. You're weaponizing my statement about why I have sympathy for your behavior here.

somehow the reappearance of this Orwellian image fits with Beckman's stark stare.

[MG 2.0]

Ninety-five percent of what you posted in the 'Secular Folks Should Worry' thread could have easily been said by him.

Ah, that thread was fun. Yes, I am more or less conservative by nature. And what I said in that thread I stand by.

It would be interesting to know whether or not, generally speaking, there is any correlation between progressive liberal politics (secularism more or less being a part of that…) and the concept of free will.

I suppose that would be a different question to parse out.

Are those that are conservative in their politics also more likely to believe in and/or accept that human beings have free will and that it is a gift from an all knowing creator?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

It would be interesting to know whether or not, generally speaking, there is any correlation between progressive liberal politics (secularism more or less being a part of that…) and the concept of free will.

I suppose that would be a different question to parse out.

Are those that are conservative in their politics also more likely to believe in and/or accept that human beings have free will and that it is a gift from an all knowing creator?

Regards,
MG

MG, liberal people believe in freedom. The most usable definition of free will is the ability to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, foundational ideas of liberal politics.

There are conservative people who believe these things as well but there are also conservative people who think humans are so corrupt that police power must be extended and strengthened to prevent corruption. There are conservative who believe that a majority of people cannot be trusted so must be looked over and controlled by those chosen people who know what is right. (I suspect that Trump knows he lost the election considering who voted for Biden but he strongly believes that he knows what is best better than the people voting )

Many evangelicals on the political right believe that the God given freedom was so corrupted by sin that there is no freedom of the will just bondage of the will. LDS enthusiasm for free will is not shared by many on the right.But some will share it , at least sometimes.

Those politically on the left generally have a better view of human nature, that it has negatives but is capable of descisions moveing in a positive way because of free will. (a will capable of learning and improving)

[Morley]

Ninety-five percent of what you posted in the 'Secular Folks Should Worry' thread could have easily been said by him.

Ah, that thread was fun. Yes, I am more or less conservative by nature. And what I said in that thread I stand by.

It would be interesting to know whether or not, generally speaking, there is any correlation between progressive liberal politics (secularism more or less being a part of that…) and the concept of free will.

I suppose that would be a different question to parse out.

Are those that are conservative in their politics also more likely to believe in and/or accept that human beings have free will and that it is a gift from an all knowing creator?

First of all, secularism deals with the separation of church and state. It has little to with liberal or conservative politics. I can be an atheist, and against the mingling of church and state, and still adopt a conservative ideology. If you've been paying attention, you'll know that we have a couple of posters on this board who fit that profile. You, yourself, have said you favor the separation of church and state--and you're not one of those liberals.*

Second, not all folks who want the linkage of church and state are people you'd agree with. The mullahs in Iran are archconservatives, and they also think there should be absolutely no separation of church and state. I don't believe you'd be happy living there.


Dunno about the 'all knowing creator' part of your formulation, but my guess is that belief about free will (whatever it means) would be the same for liberals and conservatives.

It seems that we human beings tend to think that others' misfortunes came about because they were negligent in how they exercised their free will in making poor decisions--so they're just getting what they deserve. On the other hand, our own misfortunes are because of matters beyond our control--because there were unavoidable circumstances that kept us from our potential. In other words, they had free will and screwed up, while our own screwups could not have been prevented.



*

There should be a separation between church and state. That was the whole idea as our nation came into being.

edit: I just read Huckelberry's post above this one, and he probably said it better.